Comments on: Democracy sacrified further http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/ English, Rationalist and Liberal Conservative Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:45:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Gav http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3232 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:12:27 +0000 http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3232 No, my blog's cheeky like that - it links to things all on its own! And Jim, are you James Naughtie? No, my blog’s cheeky like that - it links to things all on its own!

And Jim, are you James Naughtie?

]]> by: lascivious http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3231 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:14:09 +0000 http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3231 oooooer. English seems to have linked to an article you have. I didn't do it! oooooer. English seems to have linked to an article you have. I didn’t do it!

]]> by: lascivious http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3230 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:12:42 +0000 http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3230 Bill Murphey said "I have given assurances that there are more safeguards on the face of this bill than before, that we will have statutory consultation, we will not do anything that is highly controversial and the relevant select committees of the House of Commons will have a veto on every single proposal," Note that: "more safeguards [...] than before" is meaningless - it is relative to a previous version of the bill and he doesn't tell us what these safeguards are. "statutory consultation" does not bind the government to abide by the consultation, or even publish the results, and who is it that chooses whom to consult? "we will not do anything that is highly controversial" the Oxford English Dictionary defines <a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/controversy?view=uk" rel="nofollow">controversy</a> as "debate or disagreement about a matter which arouses strongly contrasting opinions". The use of the word "highly" can mean two things: a) Many people hold contrasting views. Thus, if not many know of it, one could sneak unsavoury changes to legislation through without it being "highly controversial" b) The opinions that a few people hold are extremely different. But if the opinions differ considerably, but not enough for the minister to judge "highly controversial", then the changes could be made. Note that this judgement is entirely subjective and would most certainly depend on the agenda the said minister has. "select committees [...] will have a veto" means that a handfull of MP's, rather than the whole of parliament, will be able to change the nation's law. It amounts to nothing. Bill Murphey said “I have given assurances that there are more safeguards on the face of this bill than before, that we will have statutory consultation, we will not do anything that is highly controversial and the relevant select committees of the House of Commons will have a veto on every single proposal,”

Note that:
“more safeguards […] than before” is meaningless - it is relative to a previous version of the bill and he doesn’t tell us what these safeguards are.

“statutory consultation” does not bind the government to abide by the consultation, or even publish the results, and who is it that chooses whom to consult?

“we will not do anything that is highly controversial” the Oxford English Dictionary defines controversy as “debate or disagreement about a matter which arouses strongly contrasting opinions”. The use of the word “highly” can mean two things:
a) Many people hold contrasting views.
Thus, if not many know of it, one could sneak unsavoury changes to legislation through without it being “highly controversial”
b) The opinions that a few people hold are extremely different.
But if the opinions differ considerably, but not enough for the minister to judge “highly controversial”, then the changes could be made. Note that this judgement is entirely subjective and would most certainly depend on the agenda the said minister has.

“select committees […] will have a veto” means that a handfull of MP’s, rather than the whole of parliament, will be able to change the nation’s law. It amounts to nothing.

]]> by: Jim http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3226 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:08:30 +0000 http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3226 To be fair, they may be somewhat slow, but the BBC do now have an article up: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4738858.stm" rel="nofollow">here</a> To be fair, they may be somewhat slow, but the BBC do now have an article up:
here

]]> by: Paul http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3224 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:11:02 +0000 http://www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/2006/02/22/democracy-sacrified-further/#comment-3224 The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is abhorrent to anyone who believes in liberal democracy. That this Government is anti-democratic is not just an opinion - Bills like this prove it. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is abhorrent to anyone who believes in liberal democracy. That this Government is anti-democratic is not just an opinion - Bills like this prove it.

]]>